Moscow Diary: War of spin

Russia was remarkably media-savvy during the South Ossetia conflict - rivalling the Georgian president, the BBC's James Rodgers says. His diary is published fortnightly.

ANOTHER BATTLEFIELD

It is the story of how a war was spun.

Russian media initially monopolised coverage from inside South Ossetia

When Russia and Georgia fought over South Ossetia, events unfolded so quickly that even many who had been watching the region closely were taken by surprise.

Subsequently, each side explained this by suggesting that the other had actually planned their military action long in advance.

Now there is a chance to look in more detail not only at what the true sequence of events might have been, but also at how the story was told.

Ever since the first warring medieval monarch hired a sympathetic troubadour to make him shine in the songs of battle, combatants have striven to be seen as the good guys. Seeking to influence war reporting in modern times is nothing new either.

What has changed is the nature of the media. That in turn has opened a new front in modern conflict.

Decisions taken at the highest levels dictated the tactics.

Both sides saw 24-hour, global news as a kind of parallel theatre of war where they had to join battle. Both paid public relations firms to advise them.

I first worked as a journalist in Moscow in the early 1990s. I had never experienced the level of access and co-operation from the Russian authorities which we foreign correspondents received in the first days of the war. This was a truly new departure.

Russia seems to have been slightly disappointed with the result. "Why are they, your partners in the mass media field, reflecting the same events in a different way?" is one of the questions which remain for the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Andrei Nesterenko.

The Georgian government also made a massive effort to tell their side of the story to the world. President Mikhail Saakashvili himself made frequent on-air appearances.

The Georgian president spent much time briefing reporters during the war

Having already talked to sources in Moscow, I spent last week in Brussels and Tbilisi trying to find out more.

In making the programme, the producer David Edmonds and I spoke to government officials, their public relations advisors, and civilians caught up in the conflict. It is a story of laying siege to the media, and bombarding them with information.

You can hear the programme "The PR Battle for the Caucasus" on the BBC World Service from 2306 GMT on Sunday, and also online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/.

In the meantime, if you're reading this in Russia, Georgia, or indeed elsewhere, I'd be interested to hear your impressions of how the media covered the conflict.

ANOTHER WAR

While in Tbilisi I tried to check out a story I half-remembered reading a few years ago: that somewhere in the city there was a British war cemetery. Any enquiries I'd made on previous visits had drawn a blank.

A post-Soviet memorial to British war dead stands in Tbilisi

I had more luck this time. The British Embassy directed me to a private house. As is often the case in the Caucasus, the garden was surrounded by a high fence. Only when a woman from the family who lived there opened the gate and showed me the way to the monument did I realise that I was in the right place. There was a simple inscription on the monument:

1914-1918

In memory of those men of the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Indian Army who died in service in this region, and were buried nearby. Their glory shall not be blotted out.

The lady I spoke to didn't know much more, except that the monument was put up in 2000, and that local people had long spoken of war dead buried in the area.

"There were originally 107 Commonwealth war graves from the First World War in Georgia," Peter Francis from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission tells me by e-mail. "The majority of these men would have died during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War."

That explains why the memorial wasn't put up until after the end of the Soviet Union. As long as it existed, the USSR would hardly honour the memory of those who had fought against its foundation.

---

Your comments:

An interesting article. I was in Moscow at the time of the crisis visiting my in-laws. As well as Russian TV news I had access to the net and quite often the western news networks wouldn't show a lot of what was shown on Russian news, either print or TV. Having weighed up all the information I had I felt that western reports were initially biased against Russia, showing Saakashvili had maybe employed better PR advisors. However it now seems that these same news agencies are becoming more sceptical of the Georgian president's claims as they are investigated and thus corroborating what was reported on Russian channels.
Ben Kent, Inverurie, UK

There is not much to comment. Yes, Russian authorities made an effort to be more professional when working with the Western media during the conflict with Georgia. And - yes, of course - the Western response was mostly pro-Georgian. Not because Georgia was right in the conflict, but for a different reason. Quoting a US president who referred to a Haitian dictator: "Yes, the guy is a [bad guy] but he is our [bad guy]". The same applies to Saakashvili. Hence - the reaction from the Western media.
Oleg Dementyev, Princeton, NJ, USA

I live in both Moscow & Lincolnshire and what both Russian and British news coverage of the recent war. When the war broke out I was in Southern Russia, and saw the Russian army deploying on the railroad whilst I returned to Moscow. I noticed a big difference in how the story was interpreted in Britain and Russia. I don't believe the Russian media was wrong, simply patriotic. Having worked as a journalist myself, I know how the media is controlled - both in Britain and Russia
Dominic Righini-Brand, Moscow & Lincolnshire (England)

This is an interesting article. You are condemning both sides in starting this conflict. Correct me if I'm wrong but, what I am getting out of this reading is that you are saying that Georgian civilians wanted this war? That Georgian soldiers wanted to be part of this was because they would then be portrayed as you put it "the good guys"? Are you saying that aftermath of this conflict made Georgian soldiers look some kind of glorious figures because they defended their country? As far as how the media handled the conflict, I think they handled poorly. Well, it depends which side of the media are you asking. Russian media handled it very poorly, like you said, it only showed one side of the story - how South Ossetian civilians were being killed and they weren't many compared to Georgian civilians. Georgia media condemned Russians in showing the ethnic cleansing they had done, but so did the rest of the world. Almost everybody in the world but the Russians, condemned Russia for their actions.
BG, USA